HK CourtDB
HomeDirectoryMCP
Hong Kong CourtDB
Back to directory
Criminal Appeal1977

LEE KWOK-TIM v. THE QUEEN

Related cases with same parties

  • CAAR10/1992THE QUEEN v. WONG MOK DIN
  • CAAR11/1986THE QUEEN v. CHUNG WAI-YIU
  • CAAR12/1986THE QUEEN v. HSU SAI-MAN AND ANOTHER
  • CAAR15/1986THE QUEEN v. WU KAM MING AND OTHERS
  • CAAR15/1987THE QUEEN v. LEUNG WING FAI
  • CAAR16/1987THE QUEEN v. PANG CHEUNG KIM
  • CAAR19/1986THE QUEEN v. CHAN CHI MAN
  • CAAR22/1986THE QUEEN v. WONG TAK-CHI
  • CAAR23/1986THE QUEEN v. MA LAI WU AND OTHERS
  • CAAR4/1986THE QUEEN v. LY XUONG THANH
  • CAAR5/1986THE QUEEN v. YEUNG KAM-WAH (D1) AND ANOTHER
  • CAAR8/1986THE QUEEN v. ALBERT STANLEY MALIA
  • CAAR9/1986THE QUEEN v. CHU TAI WAI AND ANOTHER
  • CAAR9/1989THE QUEEN v. CHAN KOON KWOK ARTHUR
  • CACC1000/1976LAI FAT v. THE QUEEN
  • CACC1000/1983THE QUEEN v. LEE HEI KEUNG
  • CACC1001/1979LAW WAI-MING AND ANOTHER v. THE QUEEN
  • CACC100/1972LIU KAM-MAN v. THE QUEEN
  • CACC100/1973LO WAI KEUNG v. THE QUEEN
  • CACC100/1977TAM YUK-MUI (F) v. THE QUEEN
958-EN-1977-02-17

LEE KWOK-TIM v. THE QUEEN

HTML content

CACC000132/1977

 

IN THE SUPREME COURT 
  
 Criminal Appeal
 1977 No. 132

-----------------

 

BETWEEN  
 LEE Kwok-timAppellant
 and 
 THE QUEENRespondent

-----------------

Coram: Morley-John, J.

Date of Judgment: 17th February 1977

 

-----------------

JUDGMENT

-----------------

 

1. The appellant pleaded guilty to theft contrary to section 9 of Theft Ordinance, Cap. 210, and was sentenced to nine months' imprisonment. He now appeals against this sentence on the grounds that it is too severe.

2. There is no dispute that prior to this case the appellant had been working for nearly seven years as a porter employed by the Hong Kong Air Terminal at Kai Tak. However the facts of the case as presented by the prosecution differed in one very material aspect from the facts pleaded to by the appellant. According to the prosecution the appellant was seen actually to insert his hand into a piece of luggage and take out a wallet and put it in his pocket. According to the appellant a piece of baggage which he was handling was broken and as he placed the baggage on his trolley the wallet fell out of the baggage and the appellant agreed that he then picked it up and put it in his pocket intending to keep the wallet. The learned magistrate in his statement of findings said that he sentenced the appellant on the basis of the facts asserted by the appellant.

3. The appellant was a respectable married man with a family and he was forty-six years of age with a clear record and I am satisfied that he yielded to a sudden temptation when this wallet dropped at his feet. The learned magistrate in his statement of findings further stated that in his view an offender's previous good character is of no account. With respect I cannot agree. The appellant has been in custody for nearly two months and in all the circumstances of this case I am satisfied that justice will be done if the appeal is allowed to the extent that in place of the sentence of nine months' imprisonment imposed by the learned magistrate there be substituted therefor a sentence of twelve months' imprisonment to be suspended for two years, and I so order.

 

 

  (M. Morley-John, J.)

 

Representation:

Appellant in person.

B.D. Amey, Crown Counsel, for Crown/Respondent.